Merrick Garland

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having recently expressed regret for commenting on a matter she shouldn’t have (the candidacy of Donald Trump) is at it again. At an event at Georgetown Law School, Ginsburg complained about the Senate’s inaction on the Merrick Garland nomination. She said: I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later. The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power »

When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, I think he understood that the Republican Senate would not confirm the judge, at least not before the November election. Obama hoped instead that Republican intransigence would hurt GOP Senators up for reelection this Fall. Blocking Garland required the assistance of Sen. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley is up for reelection. I never seen good evidence »

President Obama spoke today with local reporters from around the country about the stalled Supreme Court nomination of his Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. As America Rising Squared (AR2) reports, the president got several facts wrong (which, says AR2, has become the new normal for this Administration). Obama told reporters that “in the past, [Garland] has been confirmed unanimously by the Senate for the current position that he holds.” Not »

Politico reports that the White House and its allies are about to commence a new campaign to get a hearing and a vote for Judge Merrick Garland. They’re calling it the 9-9-9 campaign: nine states, during nine days, to push for a court with nine justices. The nine states are ones where Democrats think they might be able to pick up Senate seats this Fall. In addition, to the usual »

The estimable Ted Olson, writing in the Wall Street Journal, argues in favor of Republicans giving Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, “a good look, a respectful hearing and a vote on the merits.” More broadly, Olson calls for “a pact. . .among responsible Republican and Democratic leaders to give well-qualified Supreme Court nominees of either party a hearing and a vote within 120-180 days of a nomination.” »

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in United States v. Texas. This is the case in which Texas and 25 other states challenge the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy (DAPA), otherwise known as executive amnesty, an attempt to give legal status and work authorizations to more than four million illegal immigrants. We have written often about the case. See here and here, for example. Elizabeth Slattery of the Heritage Foundation »

Gregory Diskant, an accomplished New York lawyer, argues in the Washington Post that President Obama could appoint Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court without the Senate having confirmed the nomination. How is this possible? Because, says Diskant, the Senate could be deemed to have waived its “advice and consent” role on a Supreme Court nomination if it “fails to act” on the nomination within a “reasonable” time. Diskant’s argument »

We haven’t written much about the Senate’s treatment of, and the posturing by Senators surrounding, Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The reason I haven’t written much is that the state of play seems clear: Judge Garland will not get a hearing before the November election. Afterwards, if a Democrat wins the presidency, Republicans will consider their options. In the absence of any real suspense, the discussion has »

When politicians sanctimoniously advocate positions that everyone knows are the opposite of the ones they would take if the partisan setting were flipped, they reinforce the contempt Americans feel towards them as a class. The dispute over whether to hold hearings for and/or to confirm Merrick Garland is a case in point. Both sides are guilty to some degree of advancing positions they would denounce if the shoe were on »

The mainstream media, serving its traditional role as tool of the Democratic Party, is breathlessly pushing the talking point that Judge Merrick Garland is a practitioner of “judicial restraint.” Robert Barnes of the Washington Post peddles the theme here. David Savage, writing for the Los Angeles Times, does so here. Greg Weiner demonstrates, however, that the “judicial restraint” displayed by Judge Garland consists of deferring to the administrative state, not »

Republicans are united behind the idea that Judge Merrick Garland should not be confirmed this year, given President Obama’s lame duck status and the fact that Garland would give liberals a clear majority on the Supreme Court. Most Republicans don’t even think Garland should have a hearing. But John Kasich has a different perspective. In an interview to be aired tomorrow on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the Governor Can »